The Role of Psycholinguistic Approach in CALL Activities

The role of Psycholinguistic
approach in CALL activities

Abstract: Since the 1980s, researchers and practitioners in the field of
second language acquisition (SLA) have progressively embraced the
psycholinguistically- motivated methodological principles of task-based language
teaching (TBLT). The field of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) has
been no exception, and educational resources have gradually evolved from
behavioristic “drill and kill” e-tutors to more carefully designed
psycholinguistics-based e-tutors and sophisticated videogames and
simulations that use authentic tasks. The extant empirical literature, however,
shows that several of these more modern resources (in terms of technology
and SLA theoretical foundation) have not always promoted second language
(L2) development. To investigate this, in the present chapter we compare the
effects of different CALL resources on L2 development and discuss their
results in light of psycholinguistic underpinnings. Based on this analysis, we
underscore the importance of effectively combining task-essentialness,
corrective feedback, and individualized instruction to promote the use of
developmentally helpful cognitive processes, and advocate for a balance
between more and less controlled CALL activities to facilitate time-effective
instruction.
1 Introduction
The term task is no longer a buzzword among second language acquisition
(SLA) researchers and second language (L2) teachers, but an integral part of
their idi- olect. Many published empirical studies claim to use tasks in their
experimental treatments, and many teachers are self-proclaimed subscribers of
task-based language teaching (TBLT). The field of computer-assisted
language learning (CALL) is no exception, and technologies have gradually
evolved from the “drill and kill” approach of the first e-tutors in the 1960s to
more carefully designed psycholinguistics-based e-tutors and TBLT-
motivated videogames and simulations (see the recent volume by González-
Lloret & Ortega, 2014).
In this brief chapter, we start by presenting a classification of the different
CALL technologies in which tasks may be implemented. Revisiting Doughty
and Long’s (2003) seminal article, we discuss the potential contributions of
CALL to TBLT, identifying which CALL technologies are best suited to
pursue the 10 methodological principles of TBLT (Long, 2014). Next we
define the some- what controversial notion of task, distinguishing it from
exercises and activities,
Brought to you by | De Gruyter /
TCS Authenticated
Download Date | 12/1/15 3:54 PM
244 | Luis Cerezo, Nina Moreno, and Ronald P. Leow
and present a list of 10 task-criterial features based on Ellis (2003, 2009) and
Lai and Li (2011). In the following section we present a catalog of CALL
activities, discussing whether or not they comply with TBLT methodological
principles and task-criterial features. We organize this catalog in two sections,
more versus less controlled activities, depending on whether these require
learners to recognize/ produce the targeted forms under highly regulated
circumstances or they impose fewer constraints. Based on this catalog, we
conclude that there is a place for both TBLT-motivated CALL activities and
more “traditional” ones for the sake of time-effective instruction, as long as
both are premised on psycholinguistic underpinnings.
2 A classification of CALL technologies

There are two sides of technology to every educational course – quantitative
(i.e., the amount of technology used) and qualitative (i.e., the types of tech-
nologies used). On the quantitative side, Allen and Seaman (2015)
distinguished between four types of educational courses: traditional, in which
0 % of the course content is delivered online, web facilitated (1–29 %),
blended/hybrid (30–79 %), and online (80 % or more). On the qualitative side,
technologies may be first di- vided into worldware (software not created for
teaching and learning purposes – Ehrmann, 1995) and educational
technologies. Hitherto, various classifications of educational technologies
have been proposed, for general education purposes (Means, 1994; Taylor,
1980) and L2 learning specifically (Blake, 2011; Cerezo, 2010;
Goertler, 2012; Kern, 2006; Levy, 1997). Building upon Cerezo (2010), we
propose the classification of CALL technologies in Figure 1.
As Figure 1 illustrates, a first division of CALL technologies distinguishes
between uses of technology as a tutor or a medium. Tutors (also referred to as e-
tutors or computer assisted language instruction, CALI) engage learners in some
pedagogical practice, evaluate learners’ responses, parse these as (in)correct, and
react accordingly. Traditional tutors simply match learners’ responses against a
database of (un)acceptable answers, producing “canned” feedback or output,
whereas intelligent tutors (iCALI) use natural language processing to interpret
learners’ responses and react to them based on complex algorithms. Some even
incorporate “learner modeling,” analyzing learners’ performance and behav-
ior to replicate pedagogical decisions similar to those of human teachers (Kim,
Cowan, & Choo, 2006).

TCS Authenticated
12 Psycholinguistically motivated CALL activities |
245
CALL
Tutor Medium
CALI iCALI
Exploratory
environment Tool CMC Gaming
(e.g., text (e.g., email, (e.g., games,

(e.g., the Web) processors, wikis, chat) simulations)
concordancers)
Figure 1: A classification of CALL technologies (adapted from Cerezo, 2010)
In contrast, uses of technology as a medium grant learners agency to perform

some kind of operation, including information retrieval, processing,
production, or dissemination. Exploratory environments allow students to
retrieve information via online and offline databases, hypertext, and
multimedia (e.g., the Web, hyper-glossed texts, movies with closed
captioning). Tools allow learners to produce and/or process information
(e.g., corpus-based concordance software, text- editors). Computer mediated
communication (CMC) allows students to disseminate information either
synchronously (i.e., chat in any of their modes – text, audio, and video
interaction, as well as a combination of these) or asynchronously (e.g., e-mail,
wikis, blogs, forums, social media, clickers). Finally, gaming involves play-
ing in some sort of electronic environment (e.g., videogames, simulations, and
synthetic immersive environments or SIEs – videogame-like environments
engi- neered to produce educationally-related outcomes).
Many CALL technologies, however, defy this classification. For example,
most text editors include an automatic grammar- and/or spell-check
component that qualifies them as both tools and tutors. Also, learners may use
the same environment in different ways. Whereas some learners use
communication media like Facebook and Twitter for asynchronous
communication, others use them for synchronous communication thanks to
the automatic push notifications and chat capacities in their smart phones.

TCS Authenticated
Most of the CALL technologies in this classification were covered in the pre-
vious chapters in this volume. Examples of intelligent CALI were discussed in
Chapter 1 (Petersen & Sachs); traditional CALI was discussed in Chapter 7
(Hsieh, Moreno, & Leow) and Chapter 9 (de la Fuente); exploratory environments
(hypertext glosses) were covered in Chapter 6 (Medina); CMC in the form of
synchronous chat was covered in Chapter 1 (Petersen & Sachs), Chapter 8
(Gurzynski-Weiss, Al Khalil, Baralt, & Leow), and Chapter 10 (Baralt & Leow);
CMC in the form of clickers was discussed in Chapter 11 (Serafini & Pennestri);
and examples of gaming are included in this chapter.
With their different affordances, these CALL technologies present
different opportunities for L2 learning. The next section discusses some of
these opportunities, examining the potential contributions of CALL to
TBLT, currently the most researched educational framework for second
language teaching.
3 Contributions of CALL to TBLT

Since its onset in the 1980s, an increasing number of L2 teachers have
proclaimed themselves followers of TBLT. An “embryonic theory of language
teaching, not a theory of SLA” (Doughty & Long, 2003, p. 51), TBLT is
mainly rooted in cognitive SLA theory, particularly the Interaction Approach,
although it also borrows con- structs and principles from sociocultural and
ecological approaches to SLA (Lai & Li, 2011, p. 500), educational
psychology, and language teaching, among other disciplines. TBLT covers all
six components of an L2 program: needs and means analysis, syllabus design,
materials design, methodology and pedagogy, testing, and evaluation (Doughty
& Long, 2003, p. 50; Long, 2014). Of most relevance for this chapter, the
methodology and pedagogy component is geared around various
methodological principles (MPs) or language teaching universals that may be
executed through different pedagogic procedures (PPs), depending on the
characteristics of the teacher, learner, environment, and targeted linguistic
forms (Long, 2014).
Crucially, there are different ways of implementing TBLT. Ellis (2009, pp.
224– 225), for example, identified the differences between three approaches –
Long (1985), Skehan (1998), and his own (Ellis, 2003). While all three
underscore the importance of tasks to create natural language contexts, (1)
Long emphasizes the use of corrective feedback to focus on form, Skehan task
design and pre-task planning, and Ellis various PPs throughout the three
phases of the task-based lesson (e.g., pre-task, task, post-task); (2) Long and
Skehan view small group work as key to ensure learner-centeredness; (3)
Skehan advocates for unfocused tasks (de-
TCS Authenticated
247
signed for general language communication), while Long and Ellis also
envisage a role for focused tasks (designed to trigger the use of particular
linguistic forms); and (4) only Ellis sees a complementary role for
“traditional” instruction (e.g., presentation-practice-production, PPP).
Alongside these three takes on TBLT (to cite only a few examples), one
approach that is especially relevant for this chapter was presented in
Doughty and Long (2003), which specifically discussed how different CALL
environments may be used to execute the 10 MPs of TBLT (see Long, 2014,
for a more updated discus- sion of these MPs).
Dealing with the nature of the activities, MP1 (“Use tasks, not texts, as the unit
of analysis”) and MP2 (“Promote learning by doing”) may be executed via
simulations, tutors, and worldware. For example, students planning to visit Korea
may learn how to follow street directions by completing a sequence of increasingly
complex tasks eventually leading to a simulation with a virtual reality map task.
Focusing on the nature of input, MP3 (“Elaborate input”) draws on research
showing that while both elaborated and simplified texts promote higher L2 com-
prehension than authentic texts, elaborated texts are preferable because they also
retain new lexical and grammatical information and are closer to the original
models. Elaboration may be carried out by tutor-like applications such as author-
ing software, but given its complexity (it is ideally performed reactively based on
learners’ needs and requires mastery of the L2 and scaffolding techniques) it is
probably most effectively performed by trained native speakers via CMC. In turn,
MP4 (“Provide rich input”) underscores the importance of providing input that is
rich in terms of quality, quantity, variety, genuineness, and relevance. Rather than
the Web, with its overwhelmingly large amount of texts of unpredictable quality,
the ideal technologies for this purpose are controlled corpora that have been tagged
for text difficulty and concordance software to mine them. These resources can be
then used to complete a task such as mining Medline to find the right drug to treat
a patient, taking into consideration the drug side effects and the patient’s
medical history.
Moving on to learner processes, most of the MPs discussed by Doughty
and Long (2003) may in principle be executed via any technology, with the
necessary design and implementation considerations. MP5 (“Encourage
inductive/‘chunk’ learning”) stresses that CALL should foster repetition as
opposed to knowledge of rules only. MP6 (“Focus on form”) underscores the
importance of increasing the saliency of input via input flood, input
elaboration, input enhancement, or input processing, and corrective feedback.
Capitalizing on this latter intervention, MP7 (“Provide negative feedback”)
notes that feedback should be adjusted to the nature of the interaction (e.g.,
recasts may be more effective in synchronous than asynchronous
communication because they can be delivered within the

TCS Authenticated
learner’s cognitive processing window). MP8 (“Respect developmental

processes and ‘learner syllabuses’”) draws on research showing the existence
of developmental sequences in interlanguage development and calls for
minimizing metalinguistic instruction, avoiding online resources like
“grammar cafés.” And MP9 (“Promote cooperative/collaborative learning”)
recommends promoting teamwork with small groups and clearly defined
goals. Naturally, this may be achieved more easily via CALL environments
such as CMC, gaming, and simulations, but one can also think of learners
working together with an intelligent tutor, text editor, or concordancer.
Focusing on learners, MP10 (“Individualize instruction”) stresses the need
to tailor pedagogical interventions, deciding which tasks to use when, how,
and for whom based on information gathered on individual differences,
including goals, interests, cognitive style, cognitive capacity, motivation, and
so on. While this is more easily attained via communication through (as
opposed to with) the computer, the expanding capabilities of iCALL (e.g.,
learner modeling) paint a promis- ing picture.
In sum, different CALL environments may be used productively to
execute the different MPs of TBLT – a research-informed communicative,
learner-centered, ex- periential learning approach in which learners acquire an
L2 through the process of completing tasks. However, what are tasks in CALL
environments?
4 Tasks
Tasks, as DeKeyser (2007, p. 2) put it, are often the source of many doubts and
misconceptions: “Is speaking French a task, or requesting a glass of water in
French, or does using a conditional verb form to do this constitute a task?” A
first approx- imation to the notion of task requires an understanding of the
notions of activity and exercise. According to Cobb and Lovick (2007):
Researchers generally make a distinction between tasks and so called non-tasks, which
are mainly two types of activities: exercises and (unstructured) conversation. In this re-
gard, it makes sense to refer to everything the students are asked to do in the classroom
as “activities,” and among these to distinguish between activities that meet the
established characteristics for tasks and those that do not.
The issue then is to identify which characteristics make up a task. Based on an

extensive review of the notion, Ellis (2003, 2009) distinguished a series of
task- criterial features: (1) A task is a workplan, a series of steps that students
are instructed to follow to reach an outco`me through meaning-focused
communication.

TCS Authenticated
249
(2) The scope of a task is to engage learners to use language semantically and
prag- matically to convey meaning, in contrast to displaying language. (3)
Learners must be free to choose any linguistic forms to convey information,
and consequently the task rubric should not specify the linguistic forms to be
used. (4) A task involves situational authenticity (i.e., activities that people
usually carry out in the real world) or interactional authenticity (i.e., it
triggers language behavior compa- rable to real world tasks). (5) A task must
include some kind of “gap” that pushes learners to activate extra-linguistic
cognitive processes, ranging from the mere use of perceptual skills (e.g., to
notice, detect, or identify the differences between two pictures) to deeper
cognitive skills (e.g, selecting, reasoning, classifying, sequenc- ing,
evaluating, and transforming information from one form of representation to
another). (6) A task stipulates a non-linguistic outcome. And (7), a task ideally
promotes a combination of the four language skills.
While these characteristics define tasks in the context of traditional courses,
in which 0 % of the course content is delivered online (Allen & Seaman, 2015),
they seem to fall short to capture the full potential of tasks in the context of
CALL. On this note, some scholars (e.g., Warschauer, 2001) have urged for a
broader conceptualization of tasks. As Lai and Li (2001) synthesize, the use of
technology
(a) contributes to the development of digital literacies, one of the fundamental
as- pects of language learning in the 21st century (e.g., Hampel, 2006; Murray,
2005);
(b) redefines the notion of communicative competence as a complex matrix of
linguistic-functional, sociocultural, institutional, and environmental
competence (Lamy, 2004); and (c) promotes intercultural understanding,
allowing learners to enact cultural identities (Lam, 2000; Lamy, 2007).
Encompassing all these features, Lai and Li (2011, p. 501) defined tasks as
holistic activities in which learners make use of their language and (cross-)cultural and
communicative resources to achieve some nonlinguistic outcome through stretching
their linguistic, (cross-)cultural, internet-based communication, and digital literacy
skills.
Drawing on this definition, Ellis’ (2003, 2009) list of task-criterial features

could be supplemented with: (8) An online task promotes digital literacy, (9)
an online task promotes Internet-based communicative competence, and (10)
and online task promotes intercultural understanding.
Now, on the one hand, not all of the task-criterial features in this list are
exclu- sive to tasks. For example, many exercises involve a workplan and can
promote a combination of the four language skills. On the other hand, this list
sets the bar pretty high for activities that, despite violating one or two features,
could intuitively qualify as tasks. Consider, for example, the context of task-
TCS Authenticated
supported language teaching (TSLT), in which courses are geared around
structural syllabi that prepare students to complete tasks (see Ellis, 2009 for a
distinction between

TCS Authenticated
TSLT and TBLT). In such context, any focused task is likely to violate task-
criterial feature (3) because the syllabus gives away the linguistic form of the day,
even if the task rubric does not specify the forms to be used. Does this
automatically turn the focused task into an exercise? According to Ellis (2009, p.
223–224) it does and it does not: the activity is no longer a task, but it is not a
plain exercise either – it is a situational grammar exercise. Consequently, instead
of using this list of task- criterial features as a way to divide activities
dichotomously as tasks or exercises, we should better use it to assess whether a
CALL activity is more “task-like” or “exercise-like.” To illustrate this point, the
next section provides a brief catalog of CALL activities, evaluated through the
lens of TBLT.
5 A brief catalog of CALL activities

With the advancements in computer technology and instructed SLA, CALL
activities have gradually evolved from behavioristic “drill and kill” e-tutors
(e.g., PLATO, University of Illinois, 1960) to more carefully designed
psycholinguistics- based e-tutors and sophisticated videogames and
simulations that use authentic tasks. In the following sections we present a
brief catalog of these new CALL activities, organized in two groups. The
first group presents less controlled activities inspired by the MPs of TBLT,
while the second includes more controlled activities that require learners to
recognize/produce the targeted forms under more regulated circumstances.
5.1 Less controlled CALL activities
One of the first documented CALL resources developed off MPs of TBLT was
Gonza- lez-Lloret’s (2003) En busca de esmeraldas. In this three-dimensional
simulation, learners working individually and/or in pairs must respond to a job
offer from a Spanish native speaker. If they accept the offer, they have to
virtually navigate the University of Hawai‘i following a series of instructions
to find a mysterious document. In their interactions with the Spanish speaker,
learners are exposed to multi-modal input (either aural or written) based on
their preference, and they have access to an online dictionary to solve any
comprehension problems. They can also work with a peer, with one giving the
instructions and the other following them. Throughout the process, they have
to write several e-mails to the Spanish speaker to report on their progress.

TCS Authenticated
251
A more recent CALL resource inspired by TBLT is Mentira (Holden &

Sykes, 2012), a mobile, place-based, augmented reality game designed to
develop Span- ish general language skills. In Mentira learners must prove
their innocence in a local murder case. To do so, they have to leave the
physical classroom, equipped with an iPod Touch, and follow the instructions
in the game to venture into a real- life environment (Los Griegos
neighborhood in Albuquerque, NM), interacting in the target language both
with real people on the streets and non-player characters in the game.
Arguably, En busca de esmeraldas and Mentira are wonderful
pedagogical artifacts that bring together, to different degrees, opportunities for
interaction, increased sociolinguistic awareness, and a “fun” component that is
very likely to keep learners engaged. More importantly, these resources are
premised on a robust TBLT foundation. For example, González-Lloret (2003)
followed Doughty (2000) – one of the precursors of Doughty and Long (2003)
discussed earlier – to develop En busca de esmeraldas. She addressed
“integral education” by integrat- ing writing and listening skills with computer
skills; developed and sequenced the tasks based on a small-scale analysis of
instructors’ and students’ needs; delivered rich and elaborate input in written
and audio texts deemed natural by Spanish native speakers; promoted chunk
learning by repeating certain phrases common in directions; made input
salient by enhancing the text with a different color font; created possibilities
for collaboration by allowing learners to complete the simulation with a
partner; and promoted individualized instruction by grant- ing learners the
ability to choose the input modality (written or aural) and the work dynamic
(in solitary or with a classmate).
Yet, despite their innovative nature, pedagogical potential, and theoretical
grounding, resources like En busca de esmeraldas and Mentira have not
clearly documented links with L2 development. The data in González-Lloret
(2003) did not allow her to determine whether the task had any impact on the
comprehension or production of Spanish commands or directions, and there
is no evidence of Mentira leading to gains in Spanish general proficiency. To
date, the only cases in which TBLT-inspired CALL activities have led to
significant L2 development seem to be found when the computer is used as a
medium or within the context of a TBLT program supervised by a human
instructor – environments in which more competent interlocutors are able to
provide corrective feedback or focus on form. For example, Baralt (2013)
showed that intensive recasts delivered through the com- pletion of a task in a
CMC environment led to significant development of Spanish present
subjunctive. Similarly, González-Lloret and Nielson (2015) showed that a
TBLT-based program that included watching authentic videos, self-study in
computer labs, and interaction with a videogame called La Chamba –
together with oral interaction with native speakers – helped learners to
TCS Authenticated
improve their overall

TCS Authenticated
Spanish proficiency and to complete critical job tasks in Spanish. Clearly,

then, TBLT-based CALL activities can support SLA when managed by a more
competent human interlocutor. Does this mean, however, that CALL activities
by themselves cannot foster L2 development?
5.2 More controlled CALL activities
Unlike the less controlled CALL activities discussed above, over 20 empirical
studies using e-tutors with controlled activities (see Cerezo, 2012 for a
review) have established strong links with the (receptive and/or productive)
development of a variety of L2 grammatical structures, including Japanese
passive and reflexive constructions; Latin assignment of semantic functions;
and Spanish direct object pronouns and past counterfactual conditional
sentences, to name only a few.
Overall, the pedagogical practice in these e-tutors consisted of a problem-
solving task in which learners had to select or produce (partially) controlled
responses to complete a battery of meaningful drills (see Paulston, 1970).
For example, in Bowles (2008), learners had to find their way out of a maze
inspired on the videogame Pacman by translating a battery of English
sentences into their equivalent Spanish dative-experiencer constructions with
gustar. The sentence constituents were scattered around the maze and learners
had to hunt them down in the right order to compose the translations,
receiving more or less explicit corrective feedback with each selection.
Similarly, in Hsieh (2008) learners had to compose translations with gustar
sentences by navigating a branching tree that presented various options at a
time. For example, to translate the sentence “Car- men likes insects” (A
Carmen le gustan los insectos) learners were first to choose between the
nominative Carmen and the dative-experiencer A Carmen, respec- tively
receiving negative or positive feedback. Upon clicking on the right option, the
tree branched out to include further options (Ø/los/le), and so on.
Building upon Bowles (2008) and Hsieh (2008), Leow (2015), created The
Gus- tar Maze, which combines features of these two CALL activities and
introduces new videogame features (e.g., a game score) and corrective
feedback specially crafted to induce greater depth of processing. In The
Gustar Maze, similarly to Hsieh (2008), learners must compose translations
by subsequently choosing constituents from a number of choices. With each
selection, learners receive feedback messages (including prompts) that do not
include the grammatical rule, pushing them to formulate hypotheses (e.g.,
“¡Muy bien!”, “Oops, seems like yo doesn’t work with gustar”, “Do you know
why this option is correct?”). Once learners complete all the sentences on
one level correctly, they receive a list of potential rules, both accurate and
inaccurate. They select the rules they deem correct based on
TCS Authenticated
253
what they have learned up to that point (but they do not get any feedback on
their selection) and then they move on to the next of four levels. Learners win
or lose points based on the accuracy of their selections, so a bad streak may
move them all the way back to a previous level.
Clearly, the pedagogical activities in the e-tutors above do not satisfy
many of the MPs of TBLT or task-criterial features discussed earlier. They are
not tasks in the TBLT sense (they lack a workplan, authenticity, and
extralinguistic goals; they push the forms to be used; and they do not foster
intercultural understanding). And in terms of MPs, they do not provide
elaborated input, rich input (in terms of variety, genuineness, and relevance),
or promote collaborative learning. On the other hand, though, what these
CALL activities do have is a carefully designed structure to promote
developmentally helpful cognitive processes such as attention to form,
activation of prior knowledge, higher (levels of) awareness, greater depth of
processing, and opportunities for the proceduralization of declarative
knowledge (see Leow, 2015, for definitions). To do so, these activities rely on
three basic pillars: (1) they follow task-essential practice, understood as
learners’ need to pay attention to the targeted grammatical form in order to
successfully complete the task (Loschky & Bley-Vroman, 1993); (2) they
provide corrective feedback of different types, allowing learners to form and
confirm hypotheses; and (3) they provide learners with opportunities for
individualized instruction, making them responsible for their own learning at
their own pace. For example, in Leow’s (2015) The Gustar Maze, the activity
is task-essential because learners need to use the targeted form correctly in
order to exit the maze; the concurrent corrective feedback without rules
encourages learners to form and test hypotheses and activate recent prior
knowledge; and the provision of possible rules (correct and incorrect) at the
end of each level holds the potential of raising learners’ awareness of the
structure at the level of understanding. Arguably, the combination of (some
or all of) these processes explains the high learning outcomes of the
participants in Leow, Cerezo, and Caras’s (under review) study, who
experienced gains of 70 % to 80 % on oral and written production measures
immediately after the treatment and two weeks later.
Going one step further, simulations like Talking to Avatars (Cerezo, 2010)
are seeking to bring together the psycholinguistic rationale of the e-tutors
above with the compliance with a larger number of MPs of TBLT, by
embedding meaningful drills in the context of real-life situations, along the
lines of Ellis’ (2009,
p. 223–224) situational grammar exercises. In Talking to Avatars, participants
are immersed in two real-life situations during a year abroad in Spain. One sit-
uation involves finding an apartment and a roommate, and elicits the Spanish
present subjunctive in relative clauses. The other situation involves reporting a
TCS Authenticated
theft, and elicits Spanish prepositional relative clauses. Each situation contains

TCS Authenticated
15 communicative episodes in which the learners interact with an avatar, a na-

tive-speaking human actor pre-recorded in a video (there are over 200
different avatar reaction possibilities that cater to learners’ different
responses). Ten of the communicative episodes elicit the targeted forms, while
the remaining five elicit their non-targeted counterparts (present indicative in
relative clauses and non-prepositional relative clauses). Each mini-episode
consists of four steps:
1. Question: the avatar asks a question orally. To facilitate comprehension,
learners may replay the video and obtain a transcript or a translation.
2. Activity: the screen displays a sentence with blanks and learners are in-
structed to fill them in by providing a written translation of the targeted
forms and selecting content information.
3. Answer: the learner produces an answer.
4. Feedback: the avatar provides oral corrective feedback. No written
transcripts or translations are made available.
Talking to Avatars thus combines characteristics of tasks and exercises. It is an

exercise because the rubric specifies the language forms to be used. However,
it involves a focused balance on form and meaning, it bears situational and in-
teractional authenticity, it triggers extra-linguistic cognitive processes, and it
is oriented towards the achievement of a non-linguistic outcome (e.g., finding
an ideal apartment). Additionally, it provides rich input (in written and aural
form), encourages chunk learning through repetition, and provides corrective
feedback via task-essential practice. Testing Talking to Avatars in an
experimental design, Cerezo (2010) found that after only 40 minutes of
practice (i.e., roughly 20 minutes per grammatical structure), learners
achieved learning gains of up to 65 % in written production of Spanish
prepositional relative clauses and 40 % in written production of Spanish
present subjunctive. This proves the potential of this type of simulation in
hybrid and/or online language learning programs, while setting an example of
how pyscholinguistically-motivated e-tutors can be successfully combined
with the more communicative principles of TBLT.
6 Conclusion
The potential of CALL to promote L2 learning is unlimited. Based on TBLT
methodological principles, some CALL resources have used tasks to allow
learners to use language to interact, raise their sociolinguistic awareness, and
even increase their motivation in fun and exciting ways. At the same time,
other CALL resources have used more controlled activities that effectively
combine task-essentialness, correc-
TCS Authenticated
255
tive feedback, and individualized instruction to activate cognitive processes

such as attention to form, activation of prior knowledge, increased (levels of)
awareness, increased (levels of) depth of processing, and opportunities for
the proceduralization of declarative knowledge, propelling truly outstanding
rates of (receptive and/or productive) development of a variety of L2
grammatical structures.
As we move forward in a globalized world in which hybrid and online
learning is increasingly present, both types of resources, and even their
combination, bear incredible potential. Controlled activities allow learners to
maximize the exposure or interaction time with the L2 in preparation for a
task (pre-task) or to reinforce learned knowledge after a task (post-task). In
turn, less controlled activities in simulations and augmented reality
videogames allow learners to rehearse their ultimate goal of using the L2 in
the real world. At the core of both types of activities, however, must be one
careful consideration – the agreement with psycholinguistically motivated
methodological principles that have proven to lead to successful L2 learning.
References
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online education in the United States.
Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved from
http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradelevel.pdf
Baralt, M. (2013). The impact of cognitive complexity on feedback efficacy during online
versus face-to-face interactive tasks. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35,
689–725.
Blake, R. J. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied Lin-
guistics, 31, 19–35.
Bowles, M. A. (2008). Task type and reactivity of verbal reports in SLA: A first look at an L2
task other than reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 359–387.
Cerezo, L. (2010). Talking to avatars: The computer as a tutor and the incidence of
learner’s agency, feedback, and grammatical form in SLA. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation), Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Cerezo, L. (2012). Beyond hybrid learning: A synthesis of research on e-tutors under the
lens of SLA theory. In F. Rubio & J. J. Thoms (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and
learning: Exploring theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 50–66).
Boston, MA: Heinle/Cengage Learning.
Cobb, M., & Lovick, N. (2007). The concept of foreign language task, misconceptions and
ben- efits in implementing task-based instruction. Paper presented at the 2nd
International Conference on Task-Based Language Teaching, University of Hawai‘i
at Manoa, Honolulu, HI.
http://www.hawaii.edu/tblt2007/PP/Papers/Cobb_and_Lovick.doc
DeKeyser, R. M. (2007). Situating the concept of practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.).
Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive
psychology (pp. 1–18). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

TCS Authenticated
Doughty, C. J. (2000, September). What do computers assist in language learning?

Perspec- tives from SLA research and LT methodology. Handout for IATEFL
Conference, Madrid, Spain.
Doughty, C. J., & Long, M. H. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance
foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology. Language Learning &
Technol- ogy, 7(3), 50–80.
Ehrmann, S. C. (1995). Asking the right question: What does research tell us about
technology and higher learning? Change, 27(2), 20–27.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings.
Interna- tional Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19, 221–246.
Goertler, S. (2012). Theoretical and empirical foundations for blended language learning. In
F. Rubio & J. J. Thoms (Eds.), Hybrid language teaching and learning: Exploring
theoretical, pedagogical and curricular issues (pp. 27–49). Boston, MA: Heinle/Cengage
Learning.
González-Lloret, M. (2003). Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction: En
busca de esmeraldas. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 86–104.
González-Lloret, M. & Nielson, K. B. (2015). Evaluating TBLT: The case of a task-based
Spanish program. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 525–549.
González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching tech-
nology and tasks. Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Hampel, R. (2006). Rethinking task design for the digital age: A framework for language
teaching and learning in a synchronous online environment. ReCALL, 18(1),
105–121.
Holden, C., & Sykes, J. M. (2012). Mentira: Prototyping Language-based Locative Gameplay.
In
S. Dikkers, J. Martin & B. Coulter (Eds.), Mobile media learning: Amazing uses of mobile
devices for teaching and learning (pp. 111–131). Pittsburg, PN: ETC Press.
Hsieh, H. C. (2008). The effects of type of exposure and type of post-exposure task on L2
development. Journal of Foreign Language Instruction, 2(1), 117–138.
Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL
Quar- terly, 40(1), 183–210.
Kim, D.-H., Cowan, R., & Choo, J. (2006). CALL models for SLA feeback research. Paper
presented at the Joint American Association of Applied Linguistics and Canadian
Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Montreal, Canada.
Lai, C., & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review.
CALICO Journal, 28(2), 498–521.
Lam, W. S. E. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager
writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 457–482.
Lamy, M. N. (2004). Oral conversations online: Redefining oral competence in synchronous
environments. ReCALL, 16(2), 520–538.
Lamy, M. N. (2007). Interactive task design: Metachat and the whole language learner.
In
M. d. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 242–264).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Leow, R. P., Cerezo, L., & Caras, A. (under review). Effects of a psycholinguistically motivated
educational videogame on L2 learning outcomes and processes: The case of the
complex Spanish ‘gustar’ constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
TCS Authenticated
257
Levy, M. (1997). CALL: Context and conceptualisation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based
language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and
assessing second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M. H. (2014). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Oxford,
UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes &
S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 123–167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Means, B. (Ed.). (1994). The technology and education reform: The reality behind the promise.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Murray, D. E. (2005). Technologies for second language literacy. Annual Review of Applied Lin-
guistics, 25, 188–201.
Paulston, C. B. (1970). Structural pattern drills: A classification. Foreign Language Annals, 4, 187–
193.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Taylor, R. P. (Ed.). (1980). The computer in the school: Tutor, tool, tutee. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Warschauer, M. (2001). Millennialism and media: Language, literacy and technology
in the 21st century. AILA Review, 14, 49–59.

TCS Authenticated

The Role of Psycholinguistic Approach in CALL Activities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Psycholinguistic Approach in CALL Activities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The role of Psycholinguistic

approach in CALL activities

2 A classification of CALL technologies

Brought to you by | De Gruyter /

(e.g., text (e.g., email, (e.g., games,

Figure 1: A classification of CALL technologies (adapted from Cerezo, 2010)

In contrast, uses of technology as a medium grant learners agency to perform

Brought to you by | De Gruyter /

3 Contributions of CALL to TBLT

Brought to you by | De Gruyter /

learner’s cognitive processing window). MP8 (“Respect developmental

The issue then is to identify which characteristics make up a task. Based on an

Brought to you by | De Gruyter /

Drawing on this definition, Ellis’ (2003, 2009) list of task-criterial features

Brought to you by | De Gruyter /

5 A brief catalog of CALL activities

5.1 Less controlled CALL activities

Brought to you by | De Gruyter /

A more recent CALL resource inspired by TBLT is Mentira (Holden &

Brought to you by | De Gruyter /

Spanish proficiency and to complete critical job tasks in Spanish. Clearly,

5.2 More controlled CALL activities

Brought to you by | De Gruyter /

15 communicative episodes in which the learners interact with an avatar, a na-

Talking to Avatars thus combines characteristics of tasks and exercises. It is an

tive feedback, and individualized instruction to activate cognitive processes

Brought to you by | De Gruyter /

Doughty, C. J. (2000, September). What do computers assist in language learning?

Brought to you by | De Gruyter /

You might also like